Assessment of Extension and Its Impact: Livestock Production

Assessment of Extension and Its Impact:

Livestock Production Sub-Sector

Ethiopia is endowed with a huge size of livestock resources and animal genetic diversity. The presence of this large livestock population, genetic diversity, and production system is attributed due to its geographical location being near the historical entry point of many livestock population from Asia along the Nile Basin to Africa, topography of the country, and its climatic conditions.

The livestock population estimate varies according to sources and authors as indicated in Table 1.

Table I. Estimates of Ethiopian Livestock Population

Species	Sources
Species	ESAP (2003)	ESAP (2004)	MoA (n.d)	MeDAC (1994)
Cattle	35 Million	29 Million	34.54 Million	34.1 Million
Sheep	24 Million	22 Million	23.5 Million	30.5 Million
Goats	18 Million	17 Million	17.4 Million	21.1 Million
Camel	1 Million	1 Million	1.15 Million	-
Equines	-	7 Million	-	-
Chickens	-	54 Million	-	-

In spite of this huge livestock resource, the country has so far failed to benefit from these resources due to policy, institutions, technical, marketing and socio-cultural constraints. Livestock alone contributes 30 to 40% of the Agricultural GDP or 16 to 20% of the GDP (ESAP, 2003). Skin and hides are major contributors (14 to 16%) for foreign earnings; per capita consumption for livestock products is estimated at 4.6 kg for beef, 2.8 kg for mutton (sheep and goats), 2.85 kg for chicken and 14-15 litters of milk (ESAP, 2003). This is far below the average per capita consumption for the Sub-Saharan Africa, estimated at 9 kg for beef and 23 litters for milk for the year 1993 (ESAP,2003).

The initiative taken so far by the Ethiopian Government to develop the livestock industry is less than what is to be desired. During the Imperial era, livestock relatively received more emphasis in the extension programme. All the development package projects like CADU, WADU and SORDU had livestock improvement programmes in their components. Especially, Commercial Dairy Farms mushroomed in the pre-urban and urban areas. The establishment of the Addis Ababa Dairy Development Agency (DDA) under Proclamation No. 283/71 with a loan of 4.4 million USD from the World Bank was a right step taken in the right direction. The objectives of the agency were the 1) establishment of 40 medium (40 cow unit) and 200 ten small (10 cow unit) size dairy farms, 2) setting up cross breeding heifers producing ranch, 3) collection, processing and marketing of milk and milk products, and 4) provision of guidance and assistance to milk producers. The establishment of the Agency gave an impetus to the establishment and proliferation of many private Dairy farms in Addis Ababa and its surroundings. The proliferation of Dairy Farms in Addis Ababa and its periphery was a good beginning for the development of the dairy industry. Annually, Dairy fair show was staged in Mesqale square in Addis Ababa, where producers, Dairy equipment suppliers, Veterinary equipment and drug suppliers, and other stakeholders took part. During the Derg era however, livestock extension received less emphasis due to marked shift to food crops and industrial crops. During late 1970s, the Extension Project Implementation Department of MoA was dissolved and the extension activities were carried out by different MoA Departments organized on Commodity and Discipline basis which included Crop Production, Livestock Production, Forestry Development, Soil and Water conservation, and Cooperative Promotion (Brhane Gebrekidan, 2004). The promotion of cooperatives entails additional task to DAs, and this additional burden given to DAs led to the deterioration of the extension service (Brhane Gebrekidan, 2004).

In 1986, the Peasant Agricultural Development and Extension Programme (PADEP) was launched by then MoA, with major objective of decentralizing the power of MoA to seven geographically set regions. The Training and Visit (T&V) extension system favored by the World Bank was adopted by PADEP. The T&V system established good linkage with research and played a significant role in improving the technical capacity of the subject matter specialists, extension supervisors and DAs through regular training. On the other Land, the farmers did not benefit from the system because of the lack of appropriate extension technology packages, credit, and input provision (Brhane Gebrekidan, 2004, Habtemariam Kassa, 2005). During the Derg era, private Dairy Commercial farms were abandoned while the big ones were nationalized and incorporated into the State farms. So the development of the commercial dairy production was aborted while it was in the runway ready to take-off. The State Dairy Farms were simply concentration camps of animals where a systematic animal management system did not exist. Not only that, the loss of the genetic material through this process was beyond imagination.

Since mid 1990s, the Government of Ethiopia has been taking measures to significantly expand extension service delivery[1]. The Current extension system (PADETES) started with crop technology package for high rainfall areas. In the subsequent years, technology packages for moisture stress areas, livestock, Agro-forestry, and Soil and Water Conservations were included. The livestock development extension package was initiated in 1997 and is being implemented since then with the objectives of increasing food production and household income, ensuring food security and contributing to the development of the national economy. The main strategy was to focus on the rural and pre-urban and urban areas. In the rural areas, meat, poultry, and honey production Extension Packages have been promoted, while in the pre-urban and urban areas, the focus is on disseminating milk, meat, and egg production technologies. Later on, however, Dairy (milk) extension package were also included for the rural areas.

In spite of the Government’s effort to improve the productivity of the farmers through its extension programme (PADETES), the living standard and the life support system of most of the farmers seems to be deteriorating from time to time. The natural resources (forest, vegetation, water, soil, soil-microbes, livestock, wildlife, range land, etc) are deteriorating at an alarming rate. People are still being dislocated and settled in the new area because of low productivity, drought, famine and starvation. So, the question is whether the livestock extension is properly designed and implemented to address key issues pertinent to the development of the livestock sub-sector in Ethiopia?

The purpose of this working document paper is therefore, to inform readers the outcome of the assessment of the performance of the Livestock Development Extension Package and to contribute towards answering the question raised above. This study was part of a larger study conducted by EEA/EEPRI in 2004 and 2005 to assess PADETES and its impact on agricultural production and productivity.

2. Objectives of the Study

The overall objective of the main study was to evaluate the extension system (PADETES) and promoted extension packages in terms of changes in farmers’ productivity and income and hence their potential to reduce poverty; farmers’ knowledge and adoption and use of these recommended technologies and practices, and thereby the capacity and limitations of PADETES to realize the objectives of the ADLI in the agricultural sub-sector.

The specific objectives of the livestock component of the study were:

Ø to identify and assess the types of technologies introduced to farmers;

Ø to assess the feed resources available for farmers, and the feeding, housing and other management practices commonly followed by the farmers;

Ø to evaluate the support services like health, AI, and credit available to farmers;

Ø to assess and evaluate the marketing of animal products (milk and its products, fattened animals, honey and wax and eggs) at the farmer level;

Ø to assess the performance of the livestock extension package in terms of yield per animal and per bee – hive; and

Ø to assess and evaluate its potential to meet and realize the objective of ADLI.

3. Data Collection and Statistical Analysis

A structured questionnaire was developed for the collection of the quantitative data. Country wide, 90 Woredas were considered, with 40 to 60 households randomly selected in each Woreda within a Regional State. Eleven Woredas across the Regions were designated as Dairy and Meat producing potentials for each case, while four (4) Woredas were designated as honey producing potentials Woredas. The livestock questionnaire was developed as integral part of the whole questionnaire, developed to assess the performance of the new Ethiopian Agricultural Extension System in general. So every household head in the sampling frame had a chance to be exposed to the livestock questionnaire[2].

Gender wise, attempts were done to include 10% of the female household heads provided that the sampling frame constituted 10% or more female-headed households. The livestock Resource Development Extension survey focused on four major areas - Dairy, Meat (fattening of cattle and small ruminants), Honey, and Poultry.

The data were collected by well experienced enumerator technicians, indigenous to each Woreda. The quantitative data collected were described using the means, percentage, and frequency procedures of the SPSS statistical system (SPSS 2003).

4. Technologies Disseminated

4.1. Dairy Development Technology Extension Package

The Animal Resource Development Technology Extension Package developed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MoA, 1990 E.C), focused on addressing some of the technical constraints to improve the status of milk production in the country. Therefore, the milk production technology extension package consists of distribution of improved in-calf cross-breeds, AI and Bull services. The in-calf cross bred heifer extension package includes improved breed, animal feed (improved pasture and forage crops), animal health, housing and breeding techniques, and calf management. This study concentrated on the assessment of the distribution of improved breeds (local vs hybrid), management aspects, services (AI, credit, etc), and marketing of milk and milk products.

4.1.1. The Distribution of Improved Dairy Breeds to Farmers

The distribution of farmers possessing improved local breeds and the type of local breeds introduced to the farmers are depicted on Tables 2 and 3. Improved local breed implies, local animals selected on the bases of their dairy characteristics from the population by the research centers, or RBoA and distributed to the farmers for cross-breeding to increase milk production purposes. As it is shown on Table 2, 44.71% of the farmers in the Tigray Regional State said that both they and/or their neighbors possess improved local breeds. The responses of other Regions were less than 15%.

Table 2. Percentage Distribution of Farmers Possessing Improved local Dairy Breed by Region

Region	Response
	Yes, I have		Yes my neighbors have		No		Total
	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%
Tigray	39	11.78	109	32.93	183	55.29	331	100.00
Oromia	91	5.15	124	7.02	1551	87.83	1766	100.00
Amhara	28	2.90	73	7.57	863	89.52	964	100.00
SNNP	5	0.60	35	4.70	793	95.20	833	100.00

Source: EEA-Survey, 2004/05

Table 3. Response of Farmers on the Type of Local Improved Dairy Breeds Introduced by Region

Region	Local Breeds Introduced
	Horro	Boran	Arsi	Foggera	Barka	Total
	Response %	Response %	Response %	Response %	Response %	N
Tigray	1.48	5.19	7.41	4.44	75.56	133
Oromia	1.43	20.79	44.44	1.43	7.53	276
Amhara	1.59	4.76	15.87	18.25	7.14	126
SNNP	2.13	2.13	31.91	2.13	17.02	47

Source: EEA- Survey, 2004/05

In the Tigray and Amhara Regional States, the Barka and Fogera are respectively the dominant local improved breeds introduced to the farmers. In the Oromia Regional State, the Arsi and the Boran are major breeds introduced to the farmers, whereas in the SNNP Regional State, the Arsi and the Barka are the dominant breeds distributed to the farmers.

The distribution and the kind of cross-breed introduced to the farmers are indicated on Table 4. Over 20% of the farmers in the Tigray and Oromia Regional States said that, either they or their neighbor have received dairy cross-breeds, while response on the other Regional States was less than 15% (Table 4). With regard to type of cross-breeds introduced to the farmers, Arsi xHF, Boran xHF in Oromia, Boran xHF in Tigray, Foggera xHF in Amhara, and Jersey hybrid in the SNNP Regional States were the major breed types introduced to the farmer. However, most of the farmers (over 70%) don’t know the type of cross breed they have received (Table 5). Farmers in the Oromia Regional State seem to have better knowledge on the type of cross-breed they have received.

Table 4. Percentage Distribution of Farmers Who Received Dairy

Cross –Breeds by Region

Region	Response
	Yes, I have received		Yes, my neighbours have received		Not received		Don’t know		Total
	Cases	%	No of cases	%	Cases	%	Cases	%	Cases
Tigray	16	4.78	73	21.79	244	72.84	2	0.6	335
Oromia	142	8.31	201	11.77	1364	79.86	1	0.06	1708
Amhara	40	4.33	88	9.53	790	85.59	5	0.54	923
SNNP	19	2.37	42	5.23	741	92.28	1	0.12	803
Dire Dawa	-	-	2	4.17	46	95.83	-	-	48

Source: EEA-Survey 2004/05

Table 5. Types of Cross- Breeds Distributed to the Farmers by Region

Region	Type of cross breeds
	Boran X HF		ARSI X HF		Foggera X HF		Hybrid Jersey		Don’t know		Total cases
	Cases	%	Cases	%	Cases	%	Cases	%	Cases	%	Cases
Tigray	9	9.89	3	3.30	1	1.10	1	1.10	77	84.62	91
Oromia	59	19.03	95	30.65	6	1.94	11	3.55	133	42.90	304
Amhara	3	2.54	17	14.41	23	19.94	2	1.69	72	61.02	117
SNNP	2	3.64	3	5.45	1	1.82	4	7.27	44	80.00	54
Dire Dawa	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	100.00	1.00
Harari	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	4	100.00	4.00

Source: EEA-Survey 2004/05

Half-cross breeds (F1) are the major breeds introduced to the farmers in most of the Regions. 12.50% of the farmers in the Tigray Regional State said that, they received ¾^th cross-breeds. Unfortunately, close to over 70% of the farmers are unware of the blood level they have received in most of the Regional States. This means that, farmers are unaware of the level of management (feed, health care and housing) required for different cross-breeds to express their milk production potential. The source of the improved dairy breeds in all Regional States is RBoA. The contribution of the Research Centers and private dairy farms are minimal (Table 7). Research Centers in the Oromia Regional State appear to have better contribution as compared to the Research Centers in the other Regional States. However, there is overlapping of functions between the RBoA and the Research Centers in some of the Regional States.

Table 6. Source of Breeds by Region

Region	Source of Breeds
	Research Centers	Bureau of Agriculture	Private Dairy Farms	Don’t know	Total
	Response (%)	Response (%)	Response (%)	Response (%)	Cases
Tigray	3.16	35.44	3.80	57.59	158
Amhara	3.70	30.86	1.23	58.64	162
Oromia	5.47	39.55	2.74	51.74	400
SNNP	1.64	12.57	1.09	84.70	181
Dire Dawa	-	20.00	-	80.00	5
Harari	-	7.99	-	92.21	13

Source: EEA-Survey 2004/05[3]

With regard to eligibility of receiving improved breeds, 55.73% of the farmers in the Tigray Regional State said that, improved dairy breeds, are received by individual farmers, while in the Amhara Regional State, 55.83% of the farmers responded that, improved Dairy breeds were received by model farmers. In the Oromia Regional State, balanced response was obtained on the eligibility of receiving the improved Dairy Breeds for both individual and model farmers.

4.1.2. Feeds and Feeding System

The feeding system is based on the crop residues, pasture (grazing) and forage in some cases. In most of the Regions, kinds of crop residue fed to the animals include cereal straws (teff, wheat, and barely) and maize and sorghum cops and stalk (Table 7). In Somali Regional State, maize and sorghum stalks and cops constitute the major crop residue supplement to the animals. The introduction of improved forage and pasture crops is inadequate in all the Regions under consideration (Table 8). Except in the Tigray Regional State, over 95% of the farmers in the other Regions said that, improved pasture and forage crops were not introduced. Most of the farmers use home grown animal feed while 18.18% of the farmers in the Oromia Regional State use purchased feed (Table 9). The training offered in the technique of feed growing is inadequate in all the Regions (Table 9). For those who received training on the home growing technique, the duration of the training was less than a week in most of the cases. As the result, productivity of home grown improved pasture and forage crops is very poor in most of the Regions (Table 10). The reason for the low performance of home grown improved forage and pasture crops is attributed to water stress and land shortage in the Tigray Regional State, and land shortage in the Amhara Regional State (Table 11). Over 90% of the farmers in the other Regional State said that, they were not involved in home grown feed production.

Most of the farmers in all the Regional States don’t supplement their animals with mineral feed, except salt. Region wise, the Afar farmers supplement their animals with mineral block (6.25%), and molasses block (6.25%), followed by Oromia farmers (2.24%) and (2.67%) for mineral block and molasses block, respectively. Some farmers in the Hawzien Woreda in Tigray, Achefer Woreda in Amhara, Ambo and Degem Woredas in Oromia, and Gumer Woreda in the SNNP Regional States, exercise molasses and mineral feeding to their animals.

Table 7. Response of Farmers on the Kinds of Crop Residue they Feed their Dairy Cows by Region

Region	Kinds Residue Fed
Region	N	Cereal Straws (%)	Maize and sorghum stalks and cops (%)	Every thing available (%)	No crop residue feeding (%)	I have no dairy cow (%)
Tigray	348	56.86	11.55	2.63	-	28.76
Amhara	980	49.35	8.12	9.15	0.67	32.70
Afar	100	-	32.39	-	52.84	14.77
Oromia	1783	52.69	15.08	11.11	1.04	19.19
SNNPRS	844	41.23	11.57	9.50	6.85	30.07
Somali	100	20.00	65.00	-	9.60	4.80
B/Gumuz	100	31.06	3.85	5.83	3.85	55.34
Harari	100	19.68	22.95	-	1.64	55.74

Source: EEA – Survey, 2004/05

Table 8. Kinds of Feed Technology Introduced to the Farmers as a Source of Feed/Roughage by Region

Region	Kinds of Feed Technologies Introduced
Region	N	Improved pasture crops (%)	Forage and Fodder Crops (%)	Both improved pasture and forage crops (%)	None of them (%)
Tigray	283	8.81	24.41	3.73	63.05
Amhara	939	3.19	1.59	1.38	92.34
Oromia	1636	3.46	3.23	2.09	92.24
SNNPRS	719	2.50	2.09	0.28	95.00
Somalie	94	1.05	4.21	-	94.74

Source: EEA –Survey, 2004/05

Table 9. Response on Feed Source and Training Provided on Animal Feed Growing Technique by Region

Region	Feed Source					Training received on Feed growing Technique
Region	Case	Home grown (%)	Purchased feed (%)	Other (%)	No Dairy Cow (%)	Cases	Yes I have received (%)	No Training (%)	I have no Dairy Cow (%)
Tigray	368	52.19	11.20	1.37	34.43	317	5.99	52.05	41.96
Afar	121	29.23	9.23	44.61	16.93	125	-	80.00	20.00
Amhara	974	44.59	9.08	3.87	42.46	853	5.16	43.49	49.59
Oromia	1932	53.73	18.18	1.92	26.17	1605	5.05	61.62	33.02
SNNP	767	46.63	5.97	4.59	42.81	716	3.35	48.74	47.07
Somalia	105	78.10	9.52	2.86	9.62	92	1.09	89.13	9.78
B/Gumuz	96	15.31	3.06	11.22	70.42	94	5.32	19.15	75.33
Harari	50	16.67	9.26	-	74.07	48	-	16.66	83.33

Source: EEA –Survey, 2004/50

Table 10. Productivity of Home Grown Improved Pasture and Forage Crops by Region

Region	Performance of home grown pasture and forage crops
Region	Total Count	Very Low (%)	Fairly Good (%)	Good (%)	Very Good (%)	I didn’t produce (%)
Tigray	302	18.87	4.97	4.64	1.99	69.54
Amhara	914	14.11	2.95	1.97	1.53	79.43
Oromia	1655	3.02	4.83	3.02	1.21	87.92
SNNPRS	774	7.11	2.20	1.81	0.52	88.37
Somalie	92	3.26	9.78	1.09	-	85.87

Source: EEA - Survey, 2004/05

Table 11. Reasons of low Performance of Home Grown Improved Feeds by Region

Region	Reasons of Low Performance
Region	Total Case	Water stress (%)	Land shortage (%)	Lack of knowledge on its cultural practice (%)	Didn’t produce feed %
Tigray	287	16.03	14.29	0.70	68.99
Amhara	657	5.33	18.42	0.46	75.65
Oromia	1325	1.96	4.51	0.75	92.40
SNNP	711	0.28	7.28	2.24	90.06
Somali	56	3.57	0.00	3.57	92.86

Source: EEA - Survey, 2004/05

4.1.3. Management and Available Services

Open paddock, a separate non-concreted floor shade house, and sharing with the family are common ways of housing most of the dairy animals in all of the Regional States. 75.49% of the farmers interviewed in the Afar, 81.40% in Somali, and 79.17% in Dire Dawa, said that they use open paddock to house all types of animals together. 7.54% of the respondents in the Amhara Regional State, 7.17% in the Oromia, and 5.74 % in the SNNPRS Regional States responded that, they use a separate non-concreted floor shade to house their dairy animals. 29.09% of the farmers interviewed in the SNNPRS Regional State responded that, the animals share the same house with the family, while the response in the Oromia and the Amhara Regional States were 7.40 and 4.78%, respectively.

Training of farmers in the management of dairy cattle is essential to be successful in the business. According to the farmers interviewed in each Regional State, better training on the dairy cattle management was provided to the farmers in the Tigray Regional State (23.39%, followed by Oromia(10.13%), Amhara(5.28%) and SNNP (5.28%) Regional States.

Over 50% of the farmers in the Tigray Regional State said that, they are visited bimonthly or monthly by extension agents, while over 50% of the farmers in the other Regional States, responded that, they are not visited by the extension agent at all. Over 70% of the farmers in all the Regional States said that, frequent visit by the extension agent is necessary. Means of contacting the extension agent include social gatherings, formal meetings for agriculture teachings, farm visit and demonstration. Kind of training received by the extension agent include use of modern inputs, conservation of natural resources, animal husbandry, bee keeping and others. The educational background and the response of farmers on the knowledge and skill of the extension agent is depicted on Table 12 and 13. The evaluation of the extension agents by farmers seems to match with the educational background of the extension agents. For example, 72.32% of the farmers in the Tigray Regional State, and 57.78% in the Amhara Regional State said that, the extension agents are highly skilled. 42.31 and 20.78% of the extension agents in these two Regional States are first degree holders (Table 12).

Table 12. Percentage Distribution of Educational Background of Extension

Agents by Region

Region	Educational Background
Region	Total case	9-10 grade (%)	11-12 grade (%)	12+6m (%)	12+1 year (%)	12+2 year (%)	12+4 year (%)	M.SC (%)	Ph.D. (%)
Tigray	26	-	-	7.69	-	50.00	42.31	-	-
Afar	9	-	-	-	44.44	55.56	-	-	-
Amhara	77	-	-	1.30	-	72.73	20.78	5.19	-
Somali	2	-	-	-	100.00	-	-	-	-
B/Gumuz	7	-	-	-	-	57.14	42.86	-	-
SNNPRS	62	-	-	-	3.23	85.48	9.61	1.61	-
Dire Dawa	6	-	-	-	-	16.67	83.33	-	-
Oromia	-	0.81	0.81	5.65	10.48	70.16	6.45	4.84	0.81

Source: EEA -Survey, 2004/05

Table 13. Response of Farmers on the knowledge and skill of Extension Agents by Region

Region	Knowledge and skill of Extension Agents
Region	Total count (N)	Highly skilled and Trustful (%)	Moderately skilled and Trustful (%)	Less skilled and less trustful (%)	Totally untrustful (%)	Don’t know (%)
Tigray	313	72.52	23.00	2.56	0.32	1.60
Afar	90	37.78	48.89	4.44	2.22	6.67
Amhara	932	57.83	36.37	1.50	0.21	4.07
Oromia	1673	35.80	51.52	4.96	0.66	7.05
Somali	70	-	-	-	-	100.00
B/Gumuz	88	44.32	47.73	1.14	-	6.82
SNNP	771	37.35	37.87	5.84	1.17	17.77
Dire Dawa	46	41.30	32.61	4.35	-	21.74

Source: EEA –Survey, 2004/05

With regard to services, farmers were asked on the availability and accessibility of veterinary, AI and credit services in their area. The response on the availability and accessibility of the veterinary services is indicated on Table 14. With the exception of the Afar and Amhara Regional States, other Regions appear to be better covered by the veterinary service. Regarding the AI service, 49.85% of the farmers interviewed in the Tigray Regional State, 56.5% in the Oromia, 60.71% in the Amhara, and 74.01% in the SNNP Regional States, said that there is no artificial insemination service in their area. For those getting the service, it is provided by the Regional Bureau of Agriculture in each Regional State. Research Stations, Private Institutions, and NGOs are not involved in providing the service. To some extent, Cooperatives in the Amhara Regional State (2.06%) provide the service.

In the Tigray Regional State, veterinary service is available almost in all the sampled Woredas and all of them are covered by one of the Animal Development Technology Extension Packages. In the Afar Regional State, only 25% of the sampled Woredas have veterinary service and none of them are covered by animal development extension package. In the Amhara Regional State, 40% of the Woredas have veterinary service, while 25% of the sampled Woredas are not covered by the animal development technology extension package. 42.10% of the sampled Woredas in the Oromia Regional State, have veterinary service. Only 13.51% of the sampled Woredas in the Oromia are not covered by the animal extension package. In the SNNPRS, 52.94 of the sampled woredas have veterinary service while 41.15% are not covered by the animal extension package. In the Somali Regional State, veterinary service is available in the JIjiga Woreda, and only 25% of the respondents in the Kebre Beya Woreda said that veterinary service was available to them. Farmers in Dire Dawa City Administration and in Harari Regional State said that veterinary service is available in their area. Kinds of services provided include vaccination, health check-up and training. Fee charge for the service varies, but mostly is based on either per animal treated or for the drug used

With regard to the availability of AI service, out of 310 farmers interviewed in the Tigray Regional State only 12.25% said that, their dairy animals were breed by AI. Raya Azebo and Enda-Mekhoni are better served by the AI service. 10% and 7.6% of the farmers of these Woredas are covered by the dairy extension package. Also 12.25% of the total farmers (n=911) interviewed in the Amhara Regional State said that, their animals are mated by AI. Also 13.12% of the farmers interviewed said that the AI service is accessible on call. Gonder Zuria and Wogera Woredas have better access to AI but they are not beneficiaries of the service. In the Oromia Regional State, only 8.51% of the farmers interviewed responded that, their dairy animals are mated by AI. 17.94% of the farmers said that, AI service is accessible on call. Alemya, Wouchalena Jerdu, Limu Bilbilio, Alem Gena and Ada'a Lome Woredas have better access to AI service. Alemaya and Ada Lome Woredas are not covered by the dairy extension package, whereas, farmers in the Alem Gena (7.8%), Limu Bilibilo (3.4%) and Wuchalena Jerdu Woredas (6.6%) participates in the dairy extension program. In the SNNPRS, 3.60% of the total farmers interviewed responded that, their dairy animals are mated through AI. In terms of accessibility, 12.23% of the farmers said that, AI is accessible on call. Soro, Angacha and Wenago woredas have better access to AI service but, their involvement in the dairy extension programme is minimal. In Somal, Afar, and B/Gumuz the service is not available at all.

22.95% of the farmers in the Oromia, 6.94% in the SNNPRS, 30.43% in the Somalie, and 50.00% in the Harari said that the service is provided feely. In areas where the AI service is available and where farmers have to pay, the payment for the service is based on pregnancy and per dose bases. 10.64 and 27.27% of the farmers in the Tigray Region, 17.69 and 6.69% in the Amhaara Regional State, 15% and 12.60% in the Oromia Regional State, responded that payment for the AI service is based on pregnancy and per dose, respectively.

Table 14. Availability and Accessibility of Veterinary Service by Region

Region	Response on Availability			Response on Accessibility
Region	Total count	Available (%)	Not Available (%)	Total Count	Accessible on reporting (%)	Regular Visit (%)	Accessible at all time (%)	Not Accessible (%)
Tigray	350	83.14	16.19	341	42.52	14.08	26.39	17.00
Afar	197	35.03	64.97	191	21.47	3.14	4.71	70.68
Amhara	986	37.53	62.47	960	27.71	4.79	2.29	65.21
Oromia	1790	50.39	49.61	1739	31.05	14.26	2.59	52.04
Somali	100	61.00	39.00	100	56.18	-	-	43.15
SNNPRS	842	54.99	45.01	825	44.73	4.48	2.91	47.88
Harari	51	47.06	52.94	51	41.18	-	1.96	56.86

Source: EEA –Survey, 2004/05

The availability and accessibility of the credit service varies widely from Region to Region. In the Tigray Regional State, 77.23% of the farmers interviewed said that credit is available in their area, while the response of the other Regional States were, 32.42% for Amhara, 24.79% for Oromia, 29.59% for SNNP Regional States. With the exception of the Tigray Regional State, credit service is accessible mostly to organized group farmers and model farmers. In the Tigray Regional State, most of the credit service is provided by the Food Security Department of RBoA (61.67%) and by the Institutions with party affiliation, while in the Amhara Regional State, Rural Micro Credit Association provide most of the credit services (49.84%) followed by Institutions with party affiliation (12.85%). In the Oromia Regional State, 54.60% of the farmers responded that, credit service is provided by Rural Micro Credit Association followed by the Food Security Department of the Bureau of Agriculture (22.80%). In the SNNPRS Regional State, the service is provided similar to that of the Tigray Regional State, except that, the Rural Micro Credit Association plays a major role rather than the institutions with party affiliation. In all the Regions, the role of Banks and Private Credit Associations in providing credit service remained minimal.

4.1.4. Marketing Milk and Milk Products

The marketing network for dairy products is underdeveloped in all the Regions. Most of the milk products produced are either consumed at home because of lack of market outlet or marketed by the farmers own effort. Only 4.83 and 6.14% of the farmers interviewed in the Oromia and Amhara Regional States said that, they market their dairy products through dairy marketing cooperatives. However, these miniature cooperatives are still too weak to provide other services like feed supply, veterinary and AI services, and training on the dairy products, processing and marketing. These cooperatives have not yet also created a marketing network outside the Woredas they are located. With the exception in the Somali Regional State where whole milk is marketed, farmers in the other Regional States, mostly sell processed milk. Over all market price of the whole milk revolves between one and one-half Birr/liter while that of butter falls between 21 and 25 Birr/Kg in most of the Regions.

In general, the Dairy Development Technology Extension Package has not fully addressed constraints of dairy development like availability of cross breeds and feeds, and easier ways to improving the feeding system, and mechanisms to facilitate marketing of dairy products. The distribution of cross-breeds to the farmers is extremely small. Most of the farmers have not received improved pasture and forage crop seed. For most of the farmers, credit is not available and accessible. The marketing network to market milk and milk products does not exist in most of the Regions considered in this study.

4.2. Cattle and Small Ruminant Fattening Extension Package

Percentage of farmers engaged in cattle fattening programme including the source of the animals for fattening by Region is depicted on Table 15. As indicated on Table 15, more farmers are involved in the fattening programme in Dire Dawa City Administration followed by Somali and Oromia Regional States. Woreda wise, the Raya Azebo in the Tigray Regional State, Insarona Wayu and Bure Wonberma in the Amhara, Alem Gena, Degem, Moyale, Wuchalena Jedu, and Gerar Jarso Woredas in the Oromia, Kebre Beya and Jijiga Woredas in the Somali, Wenago and Bule Woredas in the SNNPRS, and Dire Dawa Zuria in the Dire Dawa City Administration are more involved in fattening programme than those in other woredas.

Table 15. Percentage of Farmers Involved in Cattle Fattening and Sources of Animals by Region

Region	Percentage of farmers involved in fattening			Source of Animals
Region	Total Count	Yes I am involved (%)	Not involved (%)	Total count (%)	Purchased (%)	Own Animals (%)	On Credit from RBoA (%)
Tigray	530	5.71	94.29	18	61.11	16.67	22.22
Afar	199	1.01	98.99	-	-	-	-
Amhara	992	8.67	91.33	84	44.05	52.38	2.38
Oromia	1826	19.50	80.50	356	40.11	49.88	9.19
Somali	99	22.22	77.78	32	33.33	66.67	-
B/Gumuz	100	2.00	98	2	-	100	-
SNNP	850	11.41	88.59	90	72.04	22.58	4.30
Dire Dawa	50	32.00	68.00	16	20.00	80.00	-
Harari	57	27.45	72.55	14	100	-	-

Source: EEA-Survey, 2004/05

One of the fattening extension components is the selection process of the fattening animals. This technology does not appear to be practiced by the farmers in reality. Most animals for fattening are not selected based on their body condition and framework, age and weight. Professional support is not adequately provided to the farmers by the Development Agents. Only 2.87% of the farmers interviewed in the Tigray Regional State, 2.43% in Amhara, 3.22% in the Oromia, and 2.02 in the SNNP Regional States said that, they receive professional support from the DAs. Number of animals fattened at one time is less than three animals by most farmers in all the Regions.

The fattening duration period varies within Region and among Regions. The variation ranges from three to six months. In some Regions like Oromia, the duration extends over six months. This longer period is associated with lack of confining practice of the animal and balanced ration (MoA, 1993 E.C). Fattening animals are run with other animals for open grazing. The feeding practice for fattening animals in all the Regions is based on crop residues (straws and crop aftermaths) and hay (pasture). Exception to this is a few farmers in the Oromia Regional State that supplement animals with molasses (2.44%), cakes and wheat bran (1.17%). Land shortage and insufficient feed supply are identified as the major constraints of fattening in the extension program (MoA, 1993 E.C.)

Percentage of farmers involved in small ruminant fattening business is better than farmers engaged in cattle fattening (Table 16). Farmers in the Somali Region are more involved (80.00%) in small ruminant fattening followed by DireDawa farmers (40.00%) and Tigray Regional State farmers (22.64%). Most of the farmers fatten their own animals, except farmers in the Tigray Regional State (78.21%), and the SNNP Regional State (73.47%) who depend on purchased animals from the market (Table 16).

Farmers of these two Regions seem to be more dependent on their Regional Government for the source of their fattening animals. Some Woredas in each Regional State are more involved in small ruminant fattening than the others. For example, farmers of Enda Mekoni (54.00%) in the Tigray Regional State, Wereillu (54.00%) in the Amhara, Moyale (55.00%) and Wuchalena Jedu in the Oromia, and Angacha (36.00%) in the SNNP Regional States are engaged in small ruminant fattening business.

Table 16. Percentage of Farmers involved in Sheep and Goat Fattening and source of Small Ruminants by Region

Region	Percentage of farmers involved in fattening			Sources of Animals
Region	Total Count	Yes (%)	No (%)	Total Cases	Purchased (%)	Own (%)	On Credit from RBoA (%)
Tigray	349	22.64	77.36	78	78.21	6.41	15.38
Afar	200	1.50	98.50	2	-	100.00	-
Amhara	989	7.08	92.92	69	29.49	64.10	6.41
Oromia	1801	11.10	88.90	190	44.76	47.14	7.62
Somali	100	80.00	20.00	80	39.37	59.84	-
B/Gumuz	100	3.00	97.00	3	33.33	-	66.67
SNNPR	842	6.06	93.94	49	73.47	22.45	2.04
Dire Dawa	50	40.00	60.00	20	22.22	74.7	3.70
Harari	51	5.81	94.12	3	100.00	-	-

Source: EEA-Survey, 2004/05

The management and the feeding system practiced in fattening small ruminants are depicted on Table 17. Farmers in the Tigray Regional State practice stall feeding whereas, in the Amhara and the SNNP Regional States, the most common practice is open grazing supplemented with grain by-products. Crop residues, grain by-products and brewery by-products like atela are fed in the stall feeding system.

Duration of the fattening period for the small ruminants is similar to that of cattle fattening. It varies from three to six months. Most of the small ruminants to be fattened are left to look for their own feed, and a lot of energy is wasted for this purpose, which would have been conserved, and changed into body weight gain, if stall fed. Under this system of management, compensatory weight gain is not possible to achieve, because of lack of balanced diet to meet feed requirement of the animals.

Table 17. Management and Feeding Practice of the Small Ruminant Fattening Programme by Region

Region	Management and feeding Practices
Region	Total Cases	Stall Feeding (%)	Open Grazing Only (%)	Open Grazing + Grain supplement (%)	Other (%)
Tigray	85	35.27	51.76	10.59	2.35
Amhara	70	22.86	14.29	62.86	-
Oromia	204	29.41	24.02	40.20	6.37
Somali	80	1.03	73.20	18.56	7.22
SNNP	50	20.00	8.00	66.00	6.00
Dire Dawa	20	20.00	60.00	15.00	5.00
Harari	3	-	66.67	33.33	-

Source: EEA-Survey, 2004/05

Most of the fattened small ruminants are sold in the local market by the farmer himself. This is true across Woredas and Regions. Marketing services like market information centres, Government or NGO coordinated marketing network are non-existent in all the Regions. Farmers in the Somali Regional State (19.49%) and Tigray Regional State (18.46%) said that temporary holding paddock is available in their respective Regions.

According to the Livestock Resource Development Extension Package developed by the MoA (1990 E.C.), credit service is to be made available for the purchase of small ruminants for fattening purposes. However, this study indicates that, credit service availability and accessibility to the farmers is inadequate in all the Regions. 13.14% of the farmers interviewed in the Tigray Regional State said that, credit is available and accessible for small ruminants fattening programme. The responses in other Regions were less than 10%. Credit is provided by the Food Security Department of the Bureau of Agriculture of each Regional State or by the Rural Micro Credit Association. Major consideration to get credit is the individual merit and credibility (in all the Regions).

With regard to training, only less than 10% of the farmers received training on fattening small ruminants and marketing the finished animals. 69.23% of the farmers interviewed in the Tigray Regional State, 43.48% in the Amhara and 35.71% in the SNNP Regional States said that they received the training on Farmers Training Centers, while 62.50% of the farmers in the Oromia Regional State, 35.71% in the SNNPRS and 30.43% in the Amhara Regional States, received training on the farm. The training was provided for duration of five to ten days in all cases.

In general, the fattening extension package is not aggressively promoted across all the Regions. Percentage of farmers involved in the fattening programme is too small. There appears better fattening activity undergoing in the Tigray Region compared to the other Regions. Professional support is not sufficiently provided to the farmers in the area of selection of animals to be fattened, feeding system, and marketing the fattened animals. There are no visible indicators showing modern fattening technological inputs were injected in the fattening process at the farmer level. All the feeding system, fattening duration and marketing the finished animals are traditionally done.

4.3. Honey and Wax Production Extension Package

This technology package mainly constitutes the distribution of improved bee hives and their accessories, training on bee management and production, and the introduction of bee forage seeds. The percentage of farmers who received improved bee hives (transitional and modern) is very low in all the Regions. In Tigray Regional State, 31.23% of the farmers interviewed responded that they have received modern bee hives from the extension agents while the responses in other Regional States were less than 5%. In Afar, Somali, and B/Gumuz Regional States, the response was almost nil (Table 18).

The source of the bee hives is mainly the Regional Bureau of Agriculture. Rural Technology Promotion Centers have no direct contact with the farmers in all the Regions. The distribution is mainly done through the extension agents. NGOs are also involved in the distribution of improved bee hives. In Tigray, 22.22% of the farmers interviewed responded that, they received their bee hives from the NGOs, while in Amhara, Oromia, and SNNP Regional States, 10.00%, 8.33% and 4.65% of the farmers received the bee hives from the NGOs, respectively. Exception to this was that, 18.60% of the farmers received the bee hives from the Private Enterprises in the SNNP Regional State (Table 19).

Other inputs required for honey production like queen excluder, wax presser, and honey extractor are provided only for a few farmers. In the Tigray Regional State 11.46% of the farmers received queen excluder, while only 2.08% and 1.04% received honey extractor, and wax presser. 12.00% of the farmers in the Amhara Regional State received queen excluder and 8.00% received smocking equipment and protective materials. In the Oromia Regional State, 10.62% of the farmers received queen excluder, honey presser, honey extractor and smoking equipment and protective materials, while in the SNNPRS, only 9.76% of the farmers received queen excluder and 2.44% honey extractor. Terms of payment for the introduced beehives is either on credit bases or in cash, while only in some cases these items were distributed to farmers free of charge.

Table 18. Percentage of Farmers Who Received Different Kinds of Bee-hives

Region	Kinds of Bee-hives introduced
Region	Total Count	Indigenous (%)	Transitional (%)	Modern (%)	All of them (%)	Received none (%)	Not Honey Producer (%)
Tigray	349	1.43	0.29	31.23	0.29	9.17	57.59
Afar	196	1.53	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.02	97.45
Amhara	985	2.54	0.61	1.42	0.50	8.73	86.19
Oromia	1782	2.04	0.45	3.31	0.23	16.27	77.67
B/Gumuz	99	2.02	2.02	1.01	0.00	2.02	92.93
SNNPRS	842	2.85	0.12	1.66	0.36	7.36	87.65
Harari	51	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.96	98.96
Somali	98	1.02	1.02	0.00	0.00	0.00	97.96

Source: EEA –Survey, 2004/05

Table 19. Response of the Farmers on the Institutions or Agents Introducing the Bee-hives by Region

Region	Institutions or Agents Introducing the Bee-hives
Region	Total Cases	Extension Agents (%)	NGOs (%)	Cooperative (%)	Food Security Department (%)	Home made	Private Enterprises	I don’t know
Tigray	135	65.93	22.22	0.74	10.37	0.74	0.00	0.00
Amhara	40	80.00	10.00	5.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	5.00
Oromia	72	80.56	8.33	9.72	0.00	0.00	1.39	0.00
SNNPRS	43	30.23	4.65	2.33	2.33	41.86	18.60	0.00

Source: EEA –Survey, 2004/05

In the Tigray Regional State, 96.25% of the respondent farmers said that they received the bee hives on credit bases, while 41.18% of the farmers in the SNNP Regional State, prepare their own home made bee-hives. 22.50% of the farmers in the Amhara Regional State, 11.76% in the SNNP Regional State responded that, they receive the bee hives freely.

Over 80% of the farmers interviewed in all Regional States responded that, the source of the bee colonies were those from the indigenous bee-hives. Only 10.20% of the farmers in the Amhara and 3.57% of the SNNP Regional States received bee colonies from the Holleta Bee Research Center. Eventhough, Holleta Bee Research Centre is located in Oromia Regional State, Bee farmers in the Oromia Regional State appear less beneficiary from the Research facility.

The establishment of herbs, shrubs and forage crops in and around the apiary area is essential to increase the availability of nectar and pollen sources. In addition to this, the natural vegetation cover of the area needs to be adequate and water should be available close to the apiary premises. According to the farmers interviewed in all Regions less than 20% said that, the vegetation cover is adequate, while farmers in Tigray (25.51%), Afar (42.44%), Amhara (55.0%), Oromia (40.0%), B/Gumuz (49.46%), and SNNP (43.20) Regional States said that their area is moderately covered with natural vegetation. 97.06% of the farmers in the Somali Regional State and 67.35% of the Dire Dawa said that, their area is extremely degraded. The introduction of new bee forage seeds to be grown by the farmers is below adequate. Only 7.02% of the farmers in Tigray Region have received new bee forage seeds, followed by 4.79% and 4.26% in Afar and Dire Dawa Regional States, respectively (Table 20).

Table 20. Percentage of Farmers who received New Bee Forage Seeds for Production by Region

Region	Received new bee forage seeds
Region	Total cases	Yes (%)	No (%)	I have no idea (%)
Tigray	342	7.02	23.68	69.30
Afar	167	4.79	-	95.21
Amhara	955	2.20	47.12	50.68
Oromia	1705	1.35	54.31	44.34
Somali	34	-	50.00	50.00
B/Gumuz	95	-	36.84	63.16
SNNP	809	0.87	44.13	55.01
Dire Dawa	47	4.26	61.10	34.04

Source: EEA – Survey, 2004/05

The productivity of these new bee forage species is very poor because of species adaptation problem, rain water constraint and diseases in some of the Regional States. But over 90% of the farmers interviewed said that water is available for drinking including animals, in most Regional States. Exception to this is the Somali Regional State, where only 34.29% of the farmers said that, water is available for drinking for both human and animals. 25.00% of the farmers interviewed in Tigray Regional State, 36.92% in Afar, 13.02% in Amhara, 13.71% in Oromia, and 9.98% in the SNNP Regional States, responded that, water is available for both drinking and vegetable production. As the result of this, 15% of the farmers interviewed in Tigray responded that, they are engaged in vegetable and fruit production and 21.00% are involved in multipurpose tree production. In the Afar Regional State, 29.94% of the respondents said that, they are involved in vegetable and fruit production. 7.85% of the farmers interviewed in the Amhara Regional State, 8.65% in the Oromia, 8.95% in the SNNP Regional States, responded that, they practice vegetable and fruit production. A small proportion of these farmers (<5.00%) in these Regional States are also involved in multipurpose tree production. All these sideline agricultural activities are supportive to bee farming. They serve as source of nectar and pollen to the bees.

Training on the management of bees is not adequately provided to the farmers in the Regions considered under this study. Farmers are not exposed to the knowledge of health and protection practices of the bees from chemicals and pesticides, and sideline activities that would increase the nectar and the pollen sources. 20.93% of the farmers in the Tigray Regional State said that they have taken training on the management of bees, whereas the responses on the other Regions were less than 3%. Farmers in all Regions expressed that management practices of bees like health prophylactic measures, protection from chemical and pesticides, and engaging in sideline agricultural activities are difficult to implement. Other constraints mentioned by the farmers in most Regions include transferring bee colonies from the traditional bee-hives to the modern, bird problem, insects, and forage for the bees. Therefore, these problems need future attention by the extension programme.

With regard to visits and services provided to the farmers by the extension agent, farmers in the Tigray Regional State are better served, followed by Amhara, SNNP and Oromia Regional States. Credit for honey production is almost non-existent in most of the Regional States. Only 9.76% of the farmers in the Tigray Regional State responded that credit is available in their area, while the response in Oromia was less than 2%.

Marketing the honey is done by the farmer himself. Honey and wax marketing association and private honey and wax collection and processing organizations are not there. This is common to all Regions. Supportive marketing services like information on current market price, advisory and marketing networking service, collection and processing centre do not exist in most of the Regions. The honey produce is usually marketed as a mixture of honey and wax (unextracted). Only few farmers (2.53%) in Tigray, 1.75% in Oromia, and 1.50% in the SNNP Regional States, market extracted honey.

Honey Potential Werdas: Woredas of Dangla and Ziquala in the Amhara Regional State, Welisona Goro Woreda in the Oromia, and Meinit Woreda from the SNNP Regional State, are designated as honey producing potential Woredas within each Regional State. These Woredas are designated as honey producing potentials Woredas based on the criteria of number of bee colonies available in the area (>5000), productivity per bee-hive, natural vegetation cover of the area, bee forage availability, and experience on bee management and production.

However, in this particular study, no special attention was given to these Woredas by the extension programme in terms of technology transfer and promotion (Bee-hive and accessory inputs), training on bee management and production, bee forage production technique and marketing honey and wax products. In the Meinit Woreda of the SNNP Regional State, no beehive and bee production input materials were introduced at all.

Generally, the promotion of honey production technology package in terms of input supply, technical support and information dissemination is not adequately addressed. If the honey extension production is adequately addressed, it has the potential of reducing rural poverty and addressing the objective of the ADLI.

4.4 Poultry Development Technology Extension Package.

4.4.1. Distribution of Exotic Poultry Breeds.

Close to 50% of the respondents in Tigray received exotic poultry breeds, while 26.95% in Oromia, and 21.83% in Amhara received exotic breed from the Ministry of Agriculture. The response of the rest Regional States with regard to receiving exotic breed was less than 10% (Table 21). In all Regions, the Rhode Island Red Breed was distributed to the farmers (Table 21). The White leghorn Breed was distributed to the Dire Dawa Administration City. The Rhode Island Red is the most favored breed by the farmers except in Dire Dawa, where the White leghorn breed is the first choice. The choice of the exotic breed is associated with color, growth rate, disease resistance and egg yield (MoA, 1993 E.C.).

Practically, in most of the Regional States, cross-breeding local chicken with exotic breed is practiced by less than 20% of the farmers interviewed. For example, in Tigray 16.18% of those interviewed (out of 341 cases) are practicing cross-breeding, while in Amhara, and Oromia 7.93% and 11.40% are practicing cross-breeding (out of 983 and 1597 cases, respectively). Cross-breeding local chicken with the Rhode Island Red Breed is advocated by the poultry Extension Package developed by the Ministry of Agriculture.

Table 21. Percentage of farmers who received Exotic Breed and Type of Breed Received

Region	Percent Received Exotic Breed (%)			Response on the Type of Breed Received (%)
Region	Total N	Yes	No	Total N	White Leghorn	Rhode Island Red	Others	Don’t know
Tigray	248	49.14	50.86	151	2.00	53.95	38.16	5.92
Afar	195	-	100.00	-	-	-	-	-
Amhara	994	21.83	78.17	218	7.31	85.39	4.11	3.20
Oromia	1792	26.95	73.05	444	16.89	58.78	12.61	11.76
Somali	93	-	100.00	-	-	-	-	-
B/Gumuz	98	3.06	96.94	3	33.33	33.33	33.33	-
SNNPRS	848	8.61	91.39	72	9.72	65.28	6.95	18.06
Dire Dawa	56	30.00	70.00	15	46.67	53.33	-	-
Harari	51	7.84	92.16	4	25.00	75.00	-	-

Source: EEA-Survey 2004/05

However, this extension technological package is not yet adopted and practiced by most of the farmers. Only in selected Woredas, cross-breeding is better practiced. For example, Howzien (54.00%) in Tigray, Dessie Zuria (29.70%) in Amhara, Alem Gena (43.75%) and Degem (31.75%) in Oromia exercise cross-breeding better than other Woredas in each Regional State. The response of the farmers who exercise selection practices within their flock was less than 50% in most Regional States.

Except in the Amhara Regional State (17.47%), in all Regional States, less than 10% of the farmers interviewed limit the males running with the females. So birds are allowed to run together without controlling the male to female sex ratio.

Comparison of exotic, hybrids and local birds for different production and adaptability traits revealed that, with the exception of adaptability trait (disease resistance), the exotics and the hybrid birds are superior in the production traits. The hybrids are less susceptible than the exotic birds. According to the respondents, the local chickens are resistant to disease, whereas the exotic birds are susceptible to disease. In terms of egg production, weight gain, egg size, and market value, the exotic birds are superior.

4.4.2. Poultry Feeds and Feeding

Poultry feed resources and the feeding system is one of the constraints for the development of poultry industry both in the rural and urban areas. Especially poultry feed is based on grain products, which put it in competition with human beings. In spite of this fact however, farmers in all Regions practice supplementary feeding to their chicken with different feed sources (Table 22). 67.24% of the respondents in Tigray, 53.68% in the Amhara, 49.64% in Oromia, 34.89% in the SNNP Regional State, and 62.00% in the Dire Dawa City Administration practice supplementary feeding to their chicken. Maize, wheat and spoiled grains are commonly used for supplementary feeding. According to the respondents, feed is supplemented to increase egg yield and body weight. Feeding is done for the whole group, any time of the day or in the morning before they are out for scavenging (Table 23).

Table 22. Response of Farmers on the Type of Supplementary Feed Provided to the Chicken by Region

Region	Type of Supplementary feed
Region	Total N	Maize (Response %)	Wheat (Response %)	Broken Maize/ Wheat mixture (Response %)	Spoiled Grains (Response %)	Food Left Over (Response %)
Tigray	425	17.14	19.48	19.74	32.56	10.56
Amhara	438	17.12	27.63	15.75	37.90	1.37
Oromia	997	32.37	33.57	10.19	20.18	2.20
B/Gumuz	11	54.55	9.09	9.09	27.27	-
SNNPRS	236	35.69	33.90	12.29	17.37	0.42
Dire Dawa	73	32.86	17.14	10.00	27.14	8.57
Somali	8	62.50	12.50	25.00	-	-

Source: EEA-Survey, 2004/05.

Table 23. Time of Supplementary Feeding and Feeding System by Region

Region	Time of Feeding				Feeding System
	Cases	Morning (Response %)	Evening (Response %)	Anytime (Response %)	Cases	According to age and Productivity (Response %)	Whole Group (Response %)
Tigray	309	42.72	23.30	33.98	239	13.39	84.94
Amhara	611	24.06	11.29	64.48	552	4.89	92.57
Oromia	1106	49.10	11.21	38.25	971	5.05	89.80
Somali	15	53.33	6.67	40.00	14	-	100.00
SNNP	391	36.57	12.53	50.90	342	12.87	84.50
Dire Dawa	38	34.21	10.53	28.95	34	-	100.00
Harari	11	27.27	9.09	63.64	11	-	90.91
B/Gumuz	36	41.67	8.33	50.00	33	-	100.00

Source: EEA – Survey, 2004/05

Farmers have a good perception on the advantage of supplementary feeding (Table 24). Almost in all Regions, 100% of the respondents said that, they have a good perception on the advantages of supplementary feeding. These advantages are expressed in terms of increased in egg yield, weight gain, improving disease resistance and fitness, and in fetching better market price (Table 24).

In Oromia and B/Gumuz Regional States, over 60% of the respondants said that, they provide special feed for young chicks, while in the other Regional States less than 50% of the farmers responded that, they offer special feed for the young chicks. In all the Regions feeds provided as special feed include crushed cereals, assorted Enjera, food left over, grain flour, wheat and pulverized pulses.

With regard to feed resource availability, and the feeding system practiced by the farmers engaged in poultry rearing in the rural areas, the study indicated that balanced poultry ration is not being made available and modern feeding system is not introduced. The farmers still exercise their own traditional poultry rearing system.

Table 24. Response on the Perception and Advantage of Supplementary Feeding by Region

Region	Perception Response (%)			Response on advantage of supplementary Feeding
Region	Total N	Yes	No	Increased egg Yield (%)	Weight Gain (%)	Improve Disease Resistance (%)	Improve fitness (%)	Fetch Better Price (%)	All of them (%)	Total Cases
Tigray	239	100.00	-	28.68	16.67	21.08	0.25	10.05	23.28	407
Amhara	553	100.00	-	38.85	12.42	5.21	0.93	9.08	33.51	749
Oromia	975	99.49	0.51	23.02	16.10	7.43	0.58	8.74	44.06	1372
B/Gumuz	33	100.00	-	39.02	7.32	4.88	2.44	4.88	41.46	41
SNNP	345	98.85	1.15	29.82	15.83	4.82	1.61	3.44	44.50	436
Dire Dawa	34	100.00	-	4.76	4.76	4.76	4.76	4.76	76.19	42
Harari	11	100.00	-	58.52	29.41	5.88	-	5.88	-+	17
Somali	14	100.00	-	54.17	16.67	12.50	-	12.50	4.17	24

Source: EEA-Survey, 2004/05.

4.4.3. Management of Chicken and Availability of Services

The management of chicken refers to the housing of chicken, controlling their movement and health, whereas, services mainly include the availability of veterinary and credit services. In all Regions, the birds share the same house with the family or have a separate house for night time only. Less than 10% of the respondents in all Regions said that, they have constructed entirely a separate house for poultry. The house is made of local materials, mainly wood and mud with grass roofing. The free movement of birds is not usually controlled by the farmers in all the Regions. Few farmers who do control the movement of birds do it for the purpose of avoiding crop or vegetable damage and to protect them from predatory attack.

Veterinary service availability is better in Dire Dawa (72.00%), followed by Tigray (66.00%), Soma (50.00%) and the SNNP (41.17%), Regional States. In those areas where veterinary service is available, over 60% of the farmers interviewed in all the Regions responded that, the service is accessible to them. Services provided include vaccination against Newcastle disease and training in prophylactic measures.

In all the Regional States, the availability of credit service to the farmers to buy chickens and the necessary inputs is almost non-existence (Table 25). However, in terms of credit service availability (30.00%), and accessibility (81.73%) the Tigray Regional State seems to be better served than other Regional States (Table 25).

Major market outlets for poultry products in all the Regional States is the local market. Both eggs and chicken are marketed. Sales to individual consumers and to local shops are minimal in all cases.

Table 25. Availability and Accessibility of Credit Service to Farmers for Poultry Farming by Region

Region	Availability			Accessibility
Region	Total N	Available (%)	Not available (%)	Total N	Accessible (%)	Not accessible (%)
Tigray	345	29.57	70.43	104	81.73	18.27
Afar	186	0.54	99.46	-	-	-
Amhara	972	4.53	95.47	52	53.85	44.23
Oromia	1698	5.83	94.17	151	41.06	58.28
Somali	90	-	100.00	-	-	-
B/Gumuz	98	6.12	93.88	9	55.56	44.44
SNNPRS	831	2.65	97.35	34	23.53	76.47
Dire Dawa	50	6.00	94.00	4	-	100.00
Harari	42	-	100.00	-	-	-

Source: EEA-Survey, 2004/05.

Modern, well organized poultry marketing network does not exist in the Regions. Marketing poultry products is done in the old traditional way. The number of farmers covered by the poultry development extension packages is very minimal. 72.08% in the Tigray Regional State, 75.82% in Oromia, 85.67% in Amhara, and 90.79% in the SNNP Regional States of the farmers interviewed are not covered by the extension package (Table 27).

Table 27. Percentage of Farmers who said that their Participation have Changed their life Style by Region

Region	Change of life style as the result of participating in poultry extension package
Region	N	Yes, there is a change (%)	No change (%)	Didn’t participated (%)
Tigray	308	19.81	7.14	72.08
Amhara	921	5.97	8.25	85.67
Oromia	1642	14.56	9.50	75.82
SNNPRS	782	1.79	7.16	90.79

Source: EEA-Survey, 2004/05.

Table 28. Life style Change of the Farmers with Respect to Different Indicators

by Region

Region	Change of life style as the result of participating in poultry extension package (indicators)
Region	N	Increased Income (%)	Improved health & nutrition of the household (%)	Improved children’s education (%)	No Change (%)
Tigray	84	17.86	60.71	13.09	8.33
Amhara	114	17.24	19.83	18.96	43.97
Oromia	338	28.99	22.19	35.50	13.31
SNNPRS	66	6.06	12.12	16.67	63.64

Source: EEA-Survey, 2004/05

The majority of farmers who participated in the extension package program, with the exception of those in the SNNP Regional State feel that their participation in the extension programme has a positive impact on their life style change and living standard (Table 27 and 28). The impact on income, nutritional and health status of the household, and on children’s education is better realized by farmers in Tigray and Oromia Regional States. However, the impact on changes in their living standard was not noticeable for majority of farmers in the SNNP Regional State followed by farmers in the Amhara Regional State.

In general, the study indicated that, much progress was not made in promoting the poultry development extension package in most of the Regions. In the Tigray Regional State, the distribution of the exotic breed and farmers’ participation in the extension programme were better than the rest of the Regional States. But in terms of management of chicken and market outlet of the poultry products, the old traditional system is followed in all the Regions. Availability of services like animal health, and credit is better in the Tigray Regional State than the rest of the Regional States.

The participation of Afar, Somali, and B/Gumuz Regional States in the poultry extension programme is almost nil. Perhaps, the living style of mainly pastoral and agro-pastoral societies in the Regional States may not be conducive to introduce poultry development program, or the extension system in each Regional State is still under organization.

4.5. Yield and Productivity Assessment

The sampled distribution of the cross-breed dairy cattle of various grades among Regions is not evenly distributed. For example, in the Tigray Regional State, the sampling represents only two cases whereas the Amhara, Oromia and to some extent in the SNNP Regional States, the sampling was adequate for conducting fair assessment of yield and productivity (Table 29).

The Regional average daily milk yield of the various cross-breeds is depicted on (Table 29). Generally, the average milk yield of the various cross-breeds is low, less than 4 litters of milk/day across Regions. When the same data was examined between participating and non-participating farmers in the Dairy extension programs, average milk yield/day was only slightly better for the participating farmers.

Table 29. Average Daily Milk Yield of Dairy Breed by Region

Region	Breed	Stage of location	Average Daily milk yield (liter)
Region	Breed	Stage of location	N	Mean	Std. deviation
Tigray	Local cattle	Early	137	1.27	±0.72
	Local cattle	Late	128	0.95	±0.81
	Cross –breed (>50)	Early	2	2.37	±0.18
	Cross –breed (>50)	Late	2	2.37	±0.18
	Cross –Breed (50%)	Early	-	-	-
	Cross –Breed (50%)	Late	-	-	-
	Cross –Breed (<50)	Early	-	-	-
	Cross –Breed (<50)	Late
	Exotic pure	Early	2	5.00	±0.71
	Exotic pure	Late	2	4.50	±1.41
Amhara	Local cattle	Early	586	1.07	±0.53
	Local cattle	Late	548	0.64	±0.35
	Cross –breed (>50)	Early	49	3.31	±1.65
	Cross –breed (>50)	Late	49	1.97	±1.60
	Cross –Breed (50%)	Early	18	2.75	±1.16
	Cross –Breed (50%)	Late	13	1.46	±0.69
	Cross –Breed (<50)	Early	3	1.75	±.25
	Cross –Breed (<50)	Late	3	0.75	±0.25
	Exotic pure	Early	-	-	-
	Exotic pure	Late	-	-	-
Oromia	Local cattle	Early	1819	1.27	±1.66
	Local cattle	Late	1643	1.36
	Cross –breed (>50)	Early	71	3.82	±1.91
	Cross –breed (>50)	Late	7	2.27	±1.40
	Cross –Breed (50%)	Early	65	2.94	±1.84
	Cross –Breed (50%)	Late	65	1.64	±1.18
	Cross –Breed (<50)	Early	58	2.40	±1.12
	Cross –Breed (<50)	Late	54	1.36	±1.00
	Exotic pure	Early	11	5.29	±2.22
	Exotic pure	Late	10	3.22	±1.72
SNNPRS	Local cattle	Early	497	1.12	±0.50
	Local cattle	Late	470	0.66	±0.43
	Cross –breed (>50)	Early	15	1.85	±0.77
	Cross –breed (>50)	Late	16	0.93	±0.61
	Cross –Breed (50%)	Early	6	2.25	±1.04
	Cross –Breed (50%)	Late	6	1.12	±0.93
	Cross –Breed (<50)	Early	4	2.25	±0.64
	Cross –Breed (<50)	Late	4	1.12	±0.63
	Exotic pure	Early	3	2.67	±0.58
	Exotic pure	Late	3	2.00	-

Source: EEA-Survey, 2004/05

Table 30. Average Daily Milk Yield for dairy cows of participant and non-participant farmers in the dairy extension program by Region

Region	Breed	Stage of location	Participated			Non-Participated
Region	Breed	Stage of location	N	Mean (litter)	Std. deviation	N	Mean (litter)	Std. deviation
Tigray	Local cattle	Early	21	1.35	±0.61	116	1.26	±0.74
	Local cattle	Late	21	1.63	±1.53	107	0.81	±0.50
	Cross –breed (<50)	Early	-	-	-	-	-	-
	Cross –breed (<50)	Late	-	-	-	-	-	-
	Cross –Breed (50%)	Early	-	-	-	-	-	-
	Cross –Breed (50%)	Late	-	-	-	-	-	-
	Cross –Breed (>50)	Early	-	-	-	2	2.37	±0.18
	Cross –Breed (>50)	Late	-	-	-	2	2.37	±0.18
	Exotic pure	Early	2	4.50	±0.71	-	-	-
	Exotic pure	Late	2	3.50	±1.43	-	-	-
Amhara	Local cattle	Early	32	1.64	±0.87	554	1.04	±0.48
	Local cattle	Late	30	0.91	0.64	513	0.62	±0.32
	Cross –breed (<50)	Early	-	-	-	2	1.87	±0.18
	Cross –breed (<50)	Late	-	-	-	2	0.63	±0.18
	Cross –Breed (50%)	Early	11	3.10	±1.25	7	2.21	±1.25
	Cross –Breed (50%)	Late	7	1.75	±0.37	6	1.08	±0.37
	Cross –Breed (>50)	Early	31	3.67	±1.81	18	2.68	±1.15
	Cross –Breed (>50)	Late	28	2.13	±1.85	18	1.71	±1.12
	Exotic pure	Early	-	-	-	-	-	-
	Exotic pure	Late	-	-	-	-	-	-
Oromia	Local cattle	Early	79	1.69	±1.4	1740	1.24	±1.67
	Local cattle	Late	77	1.12	±1.29	1566	1.37	±1.76
	Cross –breed (<50)	Early	10	2.60	±0.73	48	2.36	±1.18
	Cross –breed (<50)	Late	7	2.03	±0.65	47.1	1.26	±0.18
	Cross –Breed (50%)	Early	21	3.84	±2.48	44	2.21	±1.27
	Cross –Breed (50%)	Late	16	1.98	±1.44	39	1.08	±1.04
	Cross –Breed (>50)	Early	19	4.58	±1.48	52	2.68	±1.99
	Cross –Breed (>50)	Late	20	2.82	±1.12	50	1.71	±1.46
	Exotic pure	Early	4	5.06	±1.61	7	5.43	±2.62
	Exotic pure	Late	4	3.87	±2.09	6	2.79	±1.45
SNNP	Local cattle	Early	5	1.40	±0.42	492	1.12	±0.50
	Local cattle	Late	5	1.05	±0.57	465	0.66	±0.43
	Cross –breed (<50)	Early	-	-	-	3	2.00	±0.50
	Cross –breed (<50)	Late	-	-	-	3	0.83	±0.29
	Cross –Breed (50%)	Early	-	-	-	6	2.25	±1.03
	Cross –Breed (50%)	Late	-	-	-	6	1.17	±0.93
	Cross –Breed (>50)	Early	-	-	-	15	1.85	±0.77
	Cross –Breed (>50)	Late	-	-	-	16	0.92	±0.61
	Exotic pure	Early	-	-	-	3	2.77	±0.57
	Exotic pure	Late	-	-	-	3	2.00	±0.00

Source: EEA-Survey, 2004/05

However, the performance of pure exotic dairy breeds was the same in both cases (Table 30). Average daily milk yield in the selected dairy potential Woredas of Enda-mekhoni (Tigray), Degem and Limu Bilibilio (Oromia), and Angacha (SNNPRS) were also examined. Dairy potential Woredas refer to an area where milk is produced in a sustainable manner through out the year. The average daily milk yield in these Woredas is depicted on Table 31. As shown on Table 31, cross-breeds higher than 50% averaged 5.17 and 4.46 litters of milk/day in Degem and Limu Bilbilio Woredas in their early lactation, respectively. The performance of the other cross –breeds in other Woredas was not different from the Regional average.

Generally, the average milk yield performance of the cross-breeds on the hands of the farmer is far below than what the dairy extension programme anticipated to achieve. The dairy extension programme was designed to achieve a production level of 5.80 liters/day (MoA 1990 E.C). At the research level, the F1 Cross –breeds are expected to produce an average milk yield of 6.00 to 7.00 litters/day (Goshu, 1983), and those above F1 crosses, 4.87 litres per days (Goshu and Mekonnen, 1997).

Table 31. Average Daily Milk yield of Dairy Cross-breeds in the selected Dairy Potential Woredas

Region	Woreda	Breed	Stage of location	Average Dairy Milk Yield (liter)
Region	Woreda	Breed	Stage of location	N	Mean	Std. Deviation
Tigray	Enda Mekahoni	Cross–Breed (<50%)	Early	-	-	-
		Cross–Breed (<50%)	Late	-	-	-
		Cross-Breed (50%)	Early	-	-	-
		Cross-Breed (50%)	Late	-	-	-
		Cross –Breed (>50%)	Early	2	2.37	±0.18
		Cross –Breed (>50%)	Late	2	2.37	±0.18
		Pure breed	Early	2	5.00	±0.71
		Pure breed	Late	2	4.50	±1.41
Oromia	Degem	Cross–Breed (<50%)	Early	10	2.85	±1.13
		Cross–Breed (<50%)	Late	10	1.33	±0.69
		Cross-Breed (50%)	Early	19	3.17	±1.36
		Cross-Breed (50%)	Late	18	1.88	±1.08
		Cross –Breed (>50%)	Early	18	5.17	±1.24
		Cross –Breed (>50%)	Late	18	3.31	±1.23
		Pure breed	Early	4	5.50	±1.47
		Pure breed	Late	3	1.75	±0.66
Oromia	Limu Bilibilo	Cross–Breed (<50%)	Early	9	2.58	±1.52
		Cross–Breed (<50%)	Late	8	1.92	±1.83
		Cross-Breed (50%)	Early	3	3.50	±0.50
		Cross-Breed (50%)	Late	-	-	-
		Cross –Breed (>50%)	Early	7	4.46	±1.90
		Cross –Breed (>50%)	Late	7	2.43	±1.54
		Pure breed	Early	-	-	-
		Pure breed	Late	-	-	-
SNNP	Angacha	Cross–Breed (<50%)	Early	4	2.25	±0.64
		Cross–Breed (<50%)	Late	4	1.13	±0.63
		Cross-Breed (50%)	Early	5	2.40	±1.08
		Cross-Breed (50%)	Late	5	1.30	±0.97
		Cross –Breed (>50%)	Early	14	1.94	±0.69
		Cross –Breed (>50%)	Late	14	1.00	±0.61
		Pure breed	Early	-	-	-
		Pure breed	Late	-	-	-

Source: EEA Survey 2004/05

In light of this, the cross-breeds achieved only 35 to 55% of their targeted production potential at the farmer level, but at the same time exceeded the local cattle production level by over. 90%.

The average annual yield per bee-hives between participating and non-participating farmers in the bee extension programme is depicted on Table 32. Average annual yield of honey from the indigenous bee-hive is visibly different between the participating and non-participating farmers in the Tigray Regional State (9.78 versus 6.53 kg) and in the Amhara Regional State (11.00 versus 6.37 kg). In the other Regional States the difference was not apparent. Average honey yield from the modern bee-hive between participating and non-participating farmers was also evident in the Oromia Regional State (21.77 versus 16.72 kg/bee-hive), while difference in the other Regional States were not apparent. Average annual productivity of honey per beehive in the honey potential Woredas of Dangla and Ziquala (Amhara), Welisona Goro (Oromia), and Meinit (SNNP) were examined (Table 33). Average annual honey productivity per indigenous bee-hive was highest in the Ziquala Woreda (9.75 kg) followed by the Dangla (8.69Kg) and Meinit Woredas (4.60 kg) in the Amhara and SNNPRS, respectively.

Table 32. Average Yield of Honey per Bee-hive Between Participating and Non-Participating Farmers in the Extension Programme.

Region	Types of bee-hives	Participated			Non-participated
		Yield per bee-hive (kg)			Yield per bee-hive (kg)
		N	Mean	Std. deviation	N	Mean	Std. deviation
Tigray	Indigenous	9	9.78	±2.49	41	6.53	±4.73
	Transitional	-	-	-	-	-	-
	Modern	8	21.87	±6.51	19	20.58	±8.43
	Price of honey /kg (Birr)	119	22.81	±4.32	-	-	-
	Price of wax/kg (Birr)	8	6.75	±2.49	-	-	-
Amhara	Indigenous	4	11.00	±1.54	256	6.37	±4.13
	Transitional	-	-	-	15	10.53	±7.34
	Modern	-	-	-	35	18.26	±8.45
	Price of honey /kg (Birr)	424	11.06	±1.86	-	-	-
	Price of wax/kg (Birr)	53	6.50	±1.15	-	-	-
Oromia	Indigenous	9	5.67	±2.60	249	5.31	±3.10
	Transitional	-	-		12	5.08	±2.02
	Modern	13	21.77	±15.82	25	16.92	±15.20
	Price of honey /kg (Birr)	413	11.46	±1.36	-	-	-
	Price of wax/kg (Birr)	16	5.09	±1.33	-	-	-
SNNP	Indigenous	-	-	-	109	5.12	±3.67
	Transitional	-	-	-	4	7.25	±6.40
	Modern	-	-	-	10	6.90	±3.41
	Price of honey /kg (Birr)	296	8.11	±1.46	-	-
	Price of wax/kg (Birr)	5	8.00	-	-	-	-

Source: EEA-Survey 2004/05

Table 33. Average Annual Productivity of Honey per Bee-hive in the Honey

Potential Woredas

Woreda	Type of Bee-hives	Average Annual Yield per beehive
Woreda	Type of Bee-hives	N	Mean	Std. deviation
Dangla (Amhara)	Indigenous	13	8.69	±4.00
	Transitional	3	14.33	±6.03
	Modern	4	17.75	±14.03
	Price of honey /kg (Birr)	13	9.70	±1.03
	Price of wax/kg (Birr)	-	-	-
Ziquala (Amhara)	Indigenous	16	9.75	±3.91
	Transitional	-	-	-
	Modern	1	15.00	-
	Price of honey /kg (Birr)	18	11.16	±1.79
	Price of wax/kg (Birr)	+8	3.94	±1.89
Welisona Goro (Oromia)	Indigenous	10	3.60	±3.63
	Transitional	-	-	-
	Modern	10	23.40	±15.43
	Price of honey /kg (Birr)	32	15.72	±3.01
	Price of wax/kg (Birr)	-	-	-
Meinit (SNNPRS)	Indigenous	30	4.63	±2.64
	Transitional	-	-	-
	Modern	1	6.00
	Price of honey /kg (Birr)	30	7.20	1.23
	Price of wax/kg (Birr)	1	10.00	-

Source: EEA – Survey 2004/05

Whereas, average annual honey productivity per modern bee-hive was highest in the Welisona Goro (23.40 kg) followed by Dangla (17.75 kg), and Ziquala (15.00 kg) in the Oromia and Amhara Regional States. Both Welisona Goro and Dangla Woredas are moisture reliable areas, and therefore, their vegetation cover is expected to be better than moisture stressed Woreda like Ziquala in the Amhara Regional State. Over all, honey productivity was much better in the Dangla Woreda than the rest of the honey potential Woredas. In terms of market value of honey, it is expensive in the Tigray Regional State (Birr 22.81 /Kg), while it is cheaper in the SNNPRS (Birr 8.11/kg).

In the literature, productivity of honey per harvest is expressed from 5 to 8 kg /per indigenous bee-hive, 12 to 15 kg per transitional bee-hive, and 20 to 25 kg/per modern bee-hive (Honey and Wax Development and Marketing Plan: Un Official Document PP26). The Regional average of honey productivity per bee-hives, and values obtained from honey potential Woredas were similar or better than values reported in the literature (Table 33). Therefore, honey productivity per bee-hive at the farmer level is encouraging, and should be promoted aggressively together with the introduction of bee forage to have a wider coverage of the honey production extension programme. Productivity achieved in the implementation of the poultry extension programme was not directly measured. Instead, market transaction values of poultry products were determined for participating and non-participating farmers in the extension program. Average number of eggs sold per year was highest by the participant farmers than in non-participant farmers in the poultry extension programme in all the Regions considered. However, the average number of live chicks (female and male) sold per year was not different for both participating and non-participating farmers.

Generally, the average volume of eggs or live chicks marketed in all Regional States is very minimal. This actually indicates that, poultry production is still at its infancy stage of development in all the Regions, and requires further attention to develop the sub-sector.

4.6. Challenges Faced

The primary challenge faced with regard to animal extension package implementation was the lack of focus for animal resource development. The percentage of farmers who participated in the different animal production technology extension package, added all together was less than 15%, with the exception of farmers in the Tigray Regional State, which was 27% (Table 34). So, the emphases given to animal resource development by each Regional State was minimal. The problem is more serious in the SNNPRS. The problem in the SNNPRS could be however, associated with the chronic farmland shortage, which averages less than a hectare in the Region. The total share of the animal production extension package promoted by the extension agents in the past two to three years was also inadequate (Table 35). As the result of this, farmers did not received adequate training, technological inputs (breed, feed crop seeds, bee hives, and services) credit, and marketing support for their animals and animal products. Therefore, the animal husbandry system is still traditional, without a substantial improvement in the production system. This is a macro-problem of policy, institutions, financial and material. A policy directives focusing to develop the sub-sector of the economy is required.

Table 34. Percentage of Farmers who participated in the Animal Resource Development Extension Package by Region

Animal Resource Technology Extension Package	Region
	Tigray		Amhara		Oromia		SNNP
	Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%
Dairy	31	6.45	37	3.22	64	2.70	3	0.38
Fattening (cattle and small ruminants)	40	8.33	16	1.39	107	4.53	26	3.30
Animal Feeds and nutrition including fodder production	5	1.04	23	2.00	41	1.73	2	0.23
Bee keeping	26	5.42	4	0.05	18	0.08	2	0.23
Poultry	25	5.20	38	3.30	111	5.00	16	2.03
Others	353	73.54	1032	89.74	2021	85.56	740	93.79
Total	480	100	1150	100	2362	100	789	100

Source: EEA - Survey, 2004/05

Table 35. Response of the Extension Agents on the total time share spent in promoting Animal Production Extension Packages in the past 3 years by Region

Region	Response on the total time share of Animal Production Technologies Promoted in the past 2 to 3 years
Region	Total response (N)	Dairy Development (%)	Cattle fattening (%)	S. ruminant fattening (%)	Poultry production (%)	Animal feeds (%)	Bee keeping (%)
Tigray	416	3.13	2.40	2.16	4.09	2.88	3.60
Afar	37	2.70	2.70	5.40		10.81
Amhara	1163	2.92	3.70	3.95	4.04	3.61	3.52
Oromia	1443	4.44	4.50	3.26	4.92	3.74	3.40
Somali	5	-	-	-	-	-	-
B/Gumuz	78	-	17.68	13.25	13.25	13.25	26.5
SNNP	881	2.38	4.20	2.27	4.31	3.63	3.74
Dire Dawa	97	4.12	4.12	4.12	5.15	4.12	5.15

Source: EEA-survey, 2004/05

The second challenge faced with the implementation of the animal extension package was an approach problem. The animal extension package information was designed to be disseminated through demonstration, field days, agricultural fair, and mass media (MoA, 1990 E.C.). However, according to the farmers interviewed in all the Regions, their main contact was through social gatherings, formal meetings for agricultural teachings, farm visits and demonstration. Agricultural fairs or exhibitions and field visits were rarely used. The response of farmers on the case of the mass media for learning on the extension package indicated that, Radio is most often used, whereas, TV is less watched in the Regions. Access to manuals and leaflets on the extension package was a major problem in most Regional States.

The third challenge faced with the implementation of the animal extension package was a technical problem. These included the availability and accessibility of breed, feeds, management, bee-hives, services like AI, veterinary and credit, and marketing network. These inputs are also considered as high cost inputs. According to the extension agents interviewed, the availability of cross-breeds, improved pasture and forage seeds adaptable to the local situation, are the major problem faced in the implementation of Animal Development Extension Package. This has been reflected by a low percentage of farmers receiving cross breed cattle. In all of the Regions where crossbreds were distributed, over 70% of the farmers interviewed or even their neighbors have not received any cross-breed animals. Feeds and feeding was also a chronic problem in all the Regions. This is attributed to land shortage, scarcity of water, and lack of adaptable improved pasture and forage seeds. This fact was well reflected by a low percentage of farmers involved in the animal feed and nutrition extension technology package (Table 34).

Other services like AI and credit were not easily available and accessible. Worst of all, the marketing structure is poorly developed in all the Regional States. Market information and organized marketing structure do not exist in most of the Regions. Only the Moyale Woreda in the Oromia Regional State has a better marketing network for marketing their fatten animals. Otherwise, in all cases, marketing is done by the farmer himself in the usual way through the local market. Access to technologies through the Research Centeres and Higher Learning Institutions was practically nil in most of the Regions. Credit services from the Banks were not apparent either. Most of the technological inputs and credit services were delivered through the Regional Agriculturial Bureaus. This has narrowed the alternative choices and farmers will tend to develop a dependence syndrome for the source of these inputs from the Government. Therefore, privatization of technological input supply and direct negotiation between the private supplier and independent farmers’ institutions such as Farmers Cooperatives or Associations should have been encouraged to promote livestock development. A cross breeding and pasture and forage crop seed production centers should be established at strategically selected locations in each Regional State, in order to serve as a source of cross-breeds and improved animal feed seeds to be distributed to the farmers.

Animal production inputs should be subsidized for a fixed production years. Marketing network need to be developed at each Regional State or only marketable technological products should be promoted. Inter-Regional transactions need also to be developed. For this to happen infrastructure like road network, communication network (there is a promising activity on this regard), power line connections, and market information has to be developed phase by phase.

5. Livestock Extension and the Pastoral and Agro-Pastoral Systems

5.1. Introduction

The pastoral and agro-pastoral areas are estimated to comprise 61-65% of the country’s total area, and are generally below 1500 meter elevation. The pastoral area occupies the peripheral part of the country encircling the highlands of the country. These areas are inhabited by an estimated population of 7.7million, composed of 29 ethnic groups (ESAP, 2000). The system supports about 28% of the cattle, 66% of the goats, 26% of the sheep and almost all of the camels. Further more, the pastoral areas are also rich in river basins, mineral, thermal energy, and with a variety of flora and fauna. The Awash river, the Omo river, and the Wabeshabell river basins are found in the pastoral areas.

Past development intervention based on the piece meal approach primarily focused on programs such as animal disease control campaign, livestock marketing and management did not bring the expected result (ESAP, 2000). These interventions were also non-participatory, and donor driven top-down approaches. As the result, most of the interventions in the pastoral areas did not bring a tangible change on the life style of the pastoralist communities.

The new pastoral development thinking recognizes the complexity of the pastoral development issues, and as the result, an integrated and holistic approach that focuses on people, not merely on the their animals or rangeland which they inhabits is advocated. The main trust of the new agro-pastoral and pastoral extension strategy is centred on this development approach, where holistic and sector-integrated methodologies should be applied. Currently, the Extension Department in the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development has finalized the Pastoral Extension Packages, mainly focusing on rain water harvesting, feed resource development, animal health, training and extension manual preparations, and the training of the development Agents (Dr. Esubalew Abate, Head, Pastoral Extension Division, MoRAD: Personal Communication). With the exception of few fattening projects under going in some of the pastoral areas, most of the extension packages developed by MoRAD are not yet implemented, because, DAs are not transferred to their respective development centers. Therefore, in this study limited fattening programs undergoing in the pastoral areas are treated.

5.2. Technologies Disseminated

The pastoral and agro-pastoral areas considered in this study include the Amibarra and Awash Fentale Woredas in the Afar Regional State, Moyale Woreda in the Oromia Regional State, Jigjig and Kebre Beya Woredas in the Somalie Regional State. Percentage of farmers involved in cattle fattening business in these Regions include 22.22% in the Somali (n = 21) and 1.01% in the Afar Regional State (n = 2). Most of these farmers fatten their own cattle.

Professional support is only provided to the Moyale farmers (86.36%, n=19) in the Oromia Regional State. Other woredas in the Somalie and Afar Regional States did not receive professional support. So the selection of animal to be fattened is not based on their body condition and framework, age and weight. Farmers’ traditional knowledge is utilized in this respect. So, technological transfer in terms of knowledge and know-how to the farmers is nil.

Feeding the fattening animals is based on the crop residue, hay (grazing) and grain supplement in all the cases. Moyale farmers supplement their fattening animals with molasses. The duration of the fattening period is over six months in the Somali and Oromia Regional States, while in the case of Afar, the fattening period is not conceptualized at all. 86.96% (n=20) of the Moyale farmers interviewed said that, they fatten less than three animals at one time while 16.16% (n=16) in the Somali Regional State responded that, they fatten between 4 to 6 animals at a time.

Small ruminant fattening business is more obvious in the Somali Regional State, than in the other pastoral Regional states. 80.00% of the respondents (n=100) in the Somali Regional State said that, they are involved in small ruminant fattening business, while these values were 55.56% (n=100) in Moyale, Oromia Regional State. Goats are more favored to be fattened by the farmers both in the Oromia and the Somali Regional States. Some of the Moyale farmers (44.44%) exercise stall feeding, while the Somali farmers, mostly practice open grazing (73.20%, n=80). Because of this system of feeding practice, the fattening period is over six months in all the pastoral Woredas in each Regional State.

In the Afar and Somali Pastoral Woredas, marketing the finished animals of both cattle and small ruminants are sold by the farmer himself in the local market, while in the Moyale pastoral Woreda, 52.00% (n=25) of the farmers said that, traders collect the fatten animals at the farm gate. In this pastoral Woreda, marketing the fatten animals appears to be more organized than other agro-pastoral Woredas of the Afar, and the Somali Regional States. For example, 50.00% (n=24) of the farmers interviewed in the Moyale Woreda responded that, there is government or NGO coordinated marketing network in the area.

Credit service is not available and accessible to the Afar and the Somali Pastoral Woredas. Whereas, 76.67% (n=30) of the farmers interviewed in the Moyale pastoral Woreda said that, credit is available and accessible to them. This credit service is provided by the Rural Micro Credit Association (21.71%, n = 23), and the Food Security Department of the RBoA (78.26%). Credit is provided based on the individual merit and credibility (95.65%, n = 23).

Training on the fattening of both cattle and small ruminants were not offered to the Afar and the Somali pastoralists. 89.66% of the farmers interviewed in the moyale pastoral Woreda said that, training on fattening technique of animals was offered. The training is offered in the Farmers Training Centre (17.86%), and on the farm training (71.43%), n=25). The training is offered for a duration of less than five days (87.l5%, n=24).

In general, the farmers in the moyale pastoral Woreda are better exposed to modern technological inputs and services as compared to the pastoral Woredas in the Afar and the Somalie Regional States. The pastoral livestock extension system needs to be introduced as matter of urgency in these pastoral and agro-pastoral Woredas of the Afar and the Somalie Regional States.

5.3. Challenges Faced

The livelihood of the pastoralist community predominantly depends on their livestock resources. But increased human population pressure, recurrent drought, environmental degradation, expansion of dry land and irrigated agriculture, and the drying of rivers and streams, ponds and wells have caused shrinkage of the grazing land, rangeland degradation, and water supply shortage in the pastoral areas. Because of this, the productivity of the livestock is dwindling from time to time, and its share in the livelihood support per household is declining; thus threatening the life support system of the pastoralists as a whole. Further more, other social functions supporting facilities like education, health, water supply and sanitation, communications and other infrastructures such as road and marketing networks, and power line connections are all under developed in the pastoral areas.

Because of the hostile nature of the environment they inhabit, their life style is based on mobility. They seasonally move from one place to another with their cattle, looking at new grazing sites and water points. One of the challenges in these processes is the introduction of new working culture in this mobile society.

The sedentarization of the pastoralists and the diversification of the pastoral economy remain to be major tasks in pastoral development. The pastoralists need to be settled phase by phase, so that social services and rural infrastructures could be facilitated easily. The availability water that favors reasonable crop production and the improvement of feed production to promote livestock farming are challenges that need to be addressed if sedentarization is to succeed. If so, mobility is not an inherited factor, but an acquired one developed as a means of coping mechanism. So, if the basic requirements of water, pasture, markets and health services are fulfilled, there is no reason that, sedentarization process of the pastoralist can’t be achieved.

Besides sedentrization, diversification of the pastoral economy through well studied sustainable pastoral economic development, based on the natural and human resources available in the pastoral areas is very essential. Opportunities do exist in many pastoral areas to develop both rain-based farming and irrigated agriculture, irrigated feed resources development, mining, tourism, fishery, small craft and cottage industries. Most importantly, developing the meat and the dairy industry in the pastoral system is an area which can’t easily be surpassed.

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

6.1 Conclusions

Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions can be made about the livestock extension.

Insufficient effort to address technical and non-technical constraints - In general the animal extension package has not yet sufficiently addressed technical constraints limiting animal production and productivity. If issues related to input availability, credit and veterinary services and market outlet are addressed, and appropriate livestock development technologies are addressed, the sub-sector has potential to reduce poverty and to meaningfully contribute to national development. The major challenges faced in the implementation of the animal resource development extension package include design problem of the extension package, lack of focus, problem of approach, and technical constraints like breed, feeds and feeding system, lack of bee-hives and accessories, and services.

Focus on highlands – Regions with important pastoral activities such as Afar, Somalie and Benishangule Gumuz have not been addressed by the extension package. Special Pastoral Extension System focusing on water development, feeds and feeding, animal health, training, and marketing, and preparation of extension manual have been formulated by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, to be implemented as an integrated component of the Pastoral Community Development Project. Improving the biophysical environment to produce more biomass and increase availability of water to encourage the sedentarization of the pastoralists, diversification of the pastoral economy, and ensuring good governance are some of the challenges to be addressed by the pastoral community development programme. Limited fattening activity is under taken by farmers in Afar and Somalie Regional States. These fattening of cattle and small ruminants are done through traditional ways. Farmers’ exposure to modern animal production inputs and services is very limited.

Positive impact on people’s livelihoods - Even though, the participation in the extension programme is very low (5.20 to 2.03%) in all the Regional States, the impact on the living standard for those who participated in the extension programme is positive. Farmers in all Regions excluding Afar and Somalie responded that, they have noticed a change in their income level, and improvement in health and nutrition of status of members of the household. In terms of productivity, the dairy cross-breeds on the hands of the farmers achieved 30 to 50% of their research production potential, while they exceeded the local cattle production level by over 150%.

Inadequate emphasis - The package approach has been the key element of PADETES. The major packages in the animal resource development extension package include breed, feeds, bull station, AI service, bee-hives, poultry breeds and housing, and (veterinary and credit) services. Some inputs like breed and bee-hives are credit eligible others are not. 26.44% of the farmers out of the total interviewed (n=480) in the Tigray Regional State said that they have participated in the animal resource development technology extension package, while this number was 9.96% (n=1150) in the Amhara; 14.04% (n=2362) in the Oromia, and 6.17% (n=7891) in the SNNPRS. Participation in the other Regional States, especially in the Afar and Somalie Regional States and the involvement of farmers in the animal resource development extension programme are extremely negligible or non-existence. The share of the Extension Agents’ time spent in the promotion of animal production technology is 14.14% for Tigray (n=413), 21.74% for Amhara (n=1163), 24.26% for Oromia (n=1443), and 21.23% for SNNPRS (n=881). Although, the effort to improve the livestock sub-sector is encouraging, the attention given to develop the animal resource is inadequate, in light of the huge livestock resource potential the country has. For instance, over 20% of the farmers interviewed in Tigray and Oromia Regional States said that, they or their neighbours have received dairy cross breeds, while the response on the other Regional States was less than 15%.

Information reaching users is inadequate – Information that farmers should be getting does not seem to be flowing adequately. For instance, with regard to the type of cross breeds introduced, over 70% of the farmers interviewed in all Regional States said that, they are un-ware of the blood level of their cross breed animals. This means that, farmers are not aware of the level of management (feed, housing, health care…etc) required for different crosses to express their productivity potential.

Poor participation of farmers and weak follow up - The participation of farmers in the animal resource development technology package is less than what is to be desired in all the Regional States. Indicators like training frequency, visists by DAs, availability of inputs and services to framers, market outlets, etc. do not show that adequate extension work has been done to promote the livestock sub-sector in most Regions. ,

Improving the feed resource base and the feeding system is necessary - The feeding system in most of the Regions is based on crop residue, pasture (open grazing) and forages in some cases. The introduction of improved forage and pasture crops to be cultivated by the farmers is inadequate in all the Regions. Most of the farmers in all Regions don’t supplement their animals with mineral supplement, except salt. Open padlock, a separate non-concreted floor shade house, and sharing with the family are most common ways of housing the dairy animals in most of the Regional States.

Inadequate involvement in fattening, apiary and poultry - Farmers in Oromia and Amhara Regional States are more engaged on cattle fattening while farmers in the Somalie and Dire Dawa are more involved in small ruminant fattening. Most of the farmers fatten their own animals, except farmers in the Tigray and SNNP Regional States who depend on purchased animals. The feeding system practiced in fattening animals is usually based on crop residue and pasture. The fattening period ranges form three to six months. Only less than 5% of the farmers involved in fattening extension package said that they had received professional support from the DAs. Percentage of farmers who received improved bee-hives (modern and transitional) is very low in all the Regions. In the Tigray Regional State, 31.23% of the farmers interviewed responded that, they have received modern bee-hives form the Extension Agents; while the responses of other Regional States were less than 10%. In the Afar, Somalie, and B/Gumuz Regional States, the response was nil. The distribution of bee-hives is mainly done by the Regional Bureaus of Agriculture through its Extension Agents. NGOs are also involved in the distribution of bee-hives. The introduction of new bee forage species to be grown by farmers is inadequate in most of the Regional States. Only 7.02% of the farmers in the Tigray Region (n=342) have received bee forage seeds followed by 4.79% (n=167) and 4.26% (n=47) in the Afar and Dire Dawa, respectively. The responses of other Regional Sates were less than 3%. Major constraints expressed by the farmers include transferring bee colonies from the indigenous to modern bee-hives, birds, insects, and bee forages.

The average volume of eggs or live chicks marketed in all the Regional State is very low. Poultry production has major role in increasing income and improving household food security. This actually indicates that, poultry production is still at its infancy stage and requires further attention in order to develop it and increase its contribution to household income and nutrition, and to the national economy.

New technologies in unchanged environment - Crossbreds still produce only one-third of their potential. Briefly, one could say that new livestock technologies are being promoted in unchanged environment where the management is still traditional and the feed environment largely unchanged, and infrastructure and marketing systems are under developed.

6.2 Recommendations

Based on the results of the study and in view of enhancing the contribution of the livestock sub-sector to national economy, the following recommendations are made.

Livestock Policy - As there has not been any, the development of the livestock sector lacks a framework to be guided by. It is important that policy directive is put in place to enhance the development of the sub-sector while minimizing its impact on environment and biodiversity.

Improving the feed resource base is crucial – The vast majority of the respondents said that they were not involved in home grown feed production, improved pasture and forage crops were not introduced in their areas, and training offered in feed growing was largely inadequate. As a result, the amount and quality of home grown animal feed was found to be extremely low. Free grazing still dominates. Unless this is changed, using improved breeds that require more feed may not achieve the desired results.

Repackaging Technologies as per the needs of localities - Designing Animal Resource Development Extension Packages must be based on the objective reality prevailing in each location or woreda and considering agro-resource and marketing potentials. It must also be participatory involving major stakeholders in its planning, instead of being centrally planned and sent downward to be implemented over the entire country.

Giving priorities to areas with potentials - We need to concentrate efforts and resources on woredas with significant potential. If one Woreda has a dairy potential, then resources should be allocated to exploit that potential. So it is recommended that the available meager resources of the Region or of the County should be invested on the enterprise where maximum return could be achieved on specific woredas or areas. Integrating technology multiplication, input delivery, credit and marketing facilities is necessary. There is lack of coordination among various components of the extension package. A technology to be effective, its various components like breed, feeds and feeding, health and AI service, and most importantly the marketing structure need to be functional in an integrated manner. Therefore, coordinated and integrated approach among different components of the extension package needs to be facilitated and promoted.

Availability of technologies - Improving availability of cross-breed animals and improved pasture and forage seeds is a must as the lack of these has become a major constraint in the implementation of the animal extension package. Therefore, it is recommended that, cross-breeding ranches and improved pasture and forage seed production centers should be established in each Regional State, based on feasibility studies.

Involve other actors - It is also helpful to encouraging the involvement of other actors in livestock extension - Research Centers, Higher Learning Institutions, the Private Sectors and Banks must be encouraged to play major roles in the extension programme either in technology introduction and promotion or rendering credit services so that they could play role in the development of the rural economy.

Subsidy - Animal production technology inputs like breed, bee-hives and accessories, improved pasture and forage seeds, and health service are expensive and therefore are not usually affordable for many farming households. It is therefore recommended that, selected animal production technologies should be subsidized for a fixed production period.

Expanding AI services - The milk production of local cow is limited to an average of 1.23 liter/day with a short lactation period. Improving the local breed through cross-breeding is essential to increase their milk productivity. This can only be achieved at a faster rate through Artificial Insemination (AI). But the availability and accessibility of the AI service is inadequate in most of the Regional States. It is therefore recommended that, the AI service should be strengthened and aggressively promoted in each of the Regional States if feed production, availability of veterinary services and marketing systems are significantly improved.

Addressing pastoral and agro-pastoral systems - These were not covered by PADETES. It is recommended that, the new pastoral extension system developed by the Extension Department of MoRAD, be implemented as an integral component of the Pastoral Community Development Project, need to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

Reference

Brhane Gebrekidane, et al 2004. Development and Application of Agricultural Technology in Ethiopia: A Discussion Paper paper presented on the occasion of the 50^th Anniversary of the establishment of Alemaya University, October 23 and 24, 2004.

ESAP (Ethiopian Society of Animal production). 2000. Livestock Production and the Environment - Implications for Sustainable livelihood. Proceedings of the 7^th annual conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal production (ESAP), held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 26-27 May 1999, Addis Ababa 442pp.

ESAP, 2001. Pastoralism and Agro-Pastoralism: Which Way forward? Proceedings of the 8^th Annual Conference of ESAP. 24-26 August 2000, Addis Ababa.

ESAP, 2003. Challenges and Opportunities of Livestock Marketing in Ethiopia. Yilema Jobere and Getachew Gebru (eds). Annual Conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production (ESAP), held in Addis Ababa Ethiopia, 26-27 May 1999 Addis Ababa 442pp.

ESAP. 2004. Farm Animal Biodiversity in Ethiopia: Status and Prospects. Asfaw Yimgunhal and Tamrat Degefa (eds). Proceedings of the 11^th Annual Conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal production held in Addis Ababa, August 28-30, 2003 Addis Ababa 441pp.

Goshu Mekonnen, 1983. Preliminary Evaluation of Holstein Breed and Their Half-Breeds for Milk Production. Eth. J. Agric. Sci.1:43-50

Goshu Mekonnen and Mekonnen Haile-Mariam, 1997. Milk Production of Foggera Cattle and their Crosses With Frisian at Gonder, Northwestern Ethiopia. Eth. J. Agric.Sci.16:61-72

Habtemariam Abate. 1997. Targeting Extension Service and the Extension Package Approach in Ethiopia. June 1997. Addis Ababa.

Habtemariam Kassa. 2005. Historical Development and Current Challenges of Agricultural Extension with particular emphasis on Ethiopia. Ethiopian Economic Association, Addis Ababa

MoA (Ministry of Agriculture). 1990 E.C. Livestock Resource Development Extension Package (Amharic version). Sene 1990 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

MoA, 1993 E.C. Performance Report of the Agricultural Extension Package in 1992/1993 Production Year ( Amharic Version). Tirre 1993, Addis Ababa.

MoA, 1994 E.C. Performance Report of the Agricultural Extension Department (Amharic Version). June 2002, Addis Ababa.

Pastoral Community Development Project: Project Appraisial Document, April 7, 2003.

[1] For details on the recent past and current extension systems, please see the report on the evaluation of PADETES and its impact on productivity conducted by EEA/EEPRI (EEA/EEPRI, 2006).

[2] For further details on the research methodology, please refer to the report on the evaluation of PADETES and its impact on productivity conducted by EEA/EEPRI (EEA/EEPRI, 2006).

[3] Note: Nine cases (5.56%) in the Amhara NRS, and two cases (0.5%) in the Oromia NRS responded that, they had had imported dairy breeds.